The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Easy Set Weapon Balance Fix - 2-handed weapons count as 2 set items
-
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭Doomslinger781 wrote: »Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.Doomslinger781 wrote: »Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.
Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!
A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?
Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.
So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.
Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.
So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »Doomslinger781 wrote: »Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.Doomslinger781 wrote: »Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.
Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!
A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?
Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.
So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.
Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.
So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.
Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.Edited by SodanTok on October 31, 2016 11:06PM0 -
acw37162✭✭✭✭✭
✭I'm still waiting for any proponent of this would take away from 2H in order th account for the buff of an extra five piece set bonus.
Which is roughly measuraable as 299 weapon damage or spell damage, 400 or so specific damage (poison, fire, 2 H, DW), 15 % ultimate reduction, 2 k-ish armor debuff.
And when you adjust the skills and passive of 2H down it still has to be playable?
See a lot, just balance it but no specific nerfs (adjustments)0 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭sodantokb16_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »Doomslinger781 wrote: »Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.Doomslinger781 wrote: »Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.
Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!
A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?
Bows and staves are 2H. I'm campaigning FOR balance. Hell, I even had 'rebalance' in my comment.
So you say they took extra measures to compensate for 2H weapons' lack of a 2-piece set bonus? Fine. Just undo those specific measures and give them the 2-piece. Nerf them and buff them at the same time - in non-groupspeak, it's called rebalancing.
Thing is, many of us believe there is already a balance as is. Many of us believe that what has been proposed is not balanced because of indirect consequences. Even if it was done properly it is more work then is necessary because you would have to deal with too many moving parts just by one simple change. The time and resources would be wasted.
So you have tonunderstand, while you may believe you are campaigning for balance, not all agree with your conclusion.
Isnt balance something like 50-50 and not "I think its balanced"? Do you feel like 2H is 50-50 with 1H on mainbar in PVE? PVP is different matter, but even there 2H ranged arent exactly on top of the food chain while 2H melee just has PVP friendly skills.
It is all a matter of perspective. For instance, a 2h is not as good as a 1h/she at dps. Just as a 2h is not as good at defending as a ih/sh. That is a type of balance. Balance does not mean I should be able to dps and defend equally with 2h versus 1h/sh. A dps bow/dw build is going to give you best stam dps, but the drawback is healing and sustain. So a setup like that is great for running 4 man or dungeons where you have support, but won't be as good for soloing maelstrom.
So yes and no I believe that 2h is on par with 1h/sh in pve depending on what your talking about. If your a tank no 2h is not on part with 1h/sh. You running maelstrom, then flip it. But yes I believe they are balanced as far as looking at the two.
And I don't know what your talking about 2h ranged? Huh?
The balance is that lines like dw and 1h require melee range which ultimately means putting yourself at more risk, thus getting a benefit of another slot. Reato, desto, bow are all ranged and can be used from a distance. 2h is the outlier as it is a great option for both front and back bars because of its versatility and heals. Additionally, it has great sustain, solid damage, heals, and a hard hitting aoe execute. This makes up for the lack of slot space.
What I do believe is that resto and desto skill lines need some love.
What has been proposed is not a 50/50 balance. It is a blanket change to he game without thinking the ramifications through.0 -
SirAndy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I'm pretty sure i've killed you before.Doomslinger781 wrote: »"Look man, little Johnny's been dual wielding his whole life... because it's inherently stronger than 2H given the 5/5/2 paradigm, even AFTER 2H was 'offset' in strength. You put 2H on par with dual wielding via rebalancing and an added 2-piece set bonus and he's got no edge. Plus, change is scary. Let him cry wolf over a misinterpreted buff - it's obvious to most that there is an imbalance, but this kid worked so hard on his current setup, given that imbalance."
#compounded problem
"Ok guys, we've got the metrics and all the empirical data, but... a bunch of kids online yelled 'NO' because they were scared or didn't understand, so... this was actually all by design. Deal with it."
#working as intended
If not, you sound just like someone else i met who also doesn't know how to play their 2H character.
Edited by SirAndy on November 1, 2016 12:19AM1 -
tnanever✭✭✭Doomslinger781 wrote: »Only undue whatever was specifically done to 2H weapons to offset their lack of a 2-piece bonus, not any other justifiable compensations when compared to other weapons and their strengths. Now this begs the question:
Were 2H weapons given some additional amount of strength solely to compensate for their lack of a 2-piece set bonus?
If so, undo that and give them a 2-piece set bonus.
If not, just give them a 2-piece set bonus.
And if the lack of a 2-piece set bonus was offset by a mix of porkbarrell adjustments to compensate for their differences with other weapons entirely, then yeah... it's time to rebalance them completely TO FEATURE A 2-PIECE SET BONUS.
Right. This is such a blatantly obvious fix for whatever potential balance issues might exist.
There is no way a person can logically disagree with having all weapon types have the same potential number of set bonuses.
Any argument regarding balance is completely and utterly irrelevant. Balance changes to weapons or weapon skills, if required, can just as easily be made in order to correct the set bonus problem.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.Doomslinger781 wrote: »Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.
Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!
A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?
"...2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 pice set bonus..."
This assumption is based on what? Why wouldn't all weapon types be balanced with all possible sets? Do you think the devs looked at every possible set combination and balanced them specifically with all the possible combinations you can make with 1-handed vs 2-handed weapons?
That's so ridiculous it's funny. No. This game has never been perfectly balanced, isn't now, and never will be (like every other game out there). Likely, the set bonus problem is just another oversight out of the thousands that exist. To fix this flaw would objectively improve the game. Whatever balance issues that arise can be handled accordingly.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »Staves and bow are Ranged so benefit of not being melee. That leaves 2h. She is the do it all skill line so there is your benefit.
I missed this. It is a good point.
Besides, I use a staff on my main bar for single target. Going DW swords would be a drop in dps. I do not see where this is coming from.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭Everyone on here who is saying "no that's stupid", I gots some news.
In a thread that came up while the PTS was still out @Wrobel acknowledged there was a imbalance at how many sets you can use between magicka users using dual wield vs staffs. Kinda seemed like he was leaning towards the idea that a staff/2h/bow would all count as a two piece to a 5 piece set. So a staff of torugs pact gives you the same increased spell damage set bonus as two torugs pact 1h swords would.
It's probably coming next patch, they were "looking into what we could do".
mark my words, if the forums scream too much of "no don't count one weapon as 2 set pieces" they will probably go with the "some inherent bonus" route op mentioned. Which would probably cause much imbalance, based on ZOS's track record.
It's nice to see some verification from the staff. It's nice to see the devs using logic and common sense once in a while.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Everyone on here who is saying "no that's stupid", I gots some news.
In a thread that came up while the PTS was still out @Wrobel acknowledged there was a imbalance at how many sets you can use between magicka users using dual wield vs staffs. Kinda seemed like he was leaning towards the idea that a staff/2h/bow would all count as a two piece to a 5 piece set. So a staff of torugs pact gives you the same increased spell damage set bonus as two torugs pact 1h swords would.
It's probably coming next patch, they were "looking into what we could do".
mark my words, if the forums scream too much of "no don't count one weapon as 2 set pieces" they will probably go with the "some inherent bonus" route op mentioned. Which would probably cause much imbalance, based on ZOS's track record.
It's nice to see some verification from the staff. It's nice to see the devs using logic and common sense once in a while.
Good to see, but I still have not seen a good magika build that used DW on their main bar.
What are you guys pulling single target on vet trial bosses using DW as your main bar?0 -
tnanever✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Everyone on here who is saying "no that's stupid", I gots some news.
In a thread that came up while the PTS was still out @Wrobel acknowledged there was a imbalance at how many sets you can use between magicka users using dual wield vs staffs. Kinda seemed like he was leaning towards the idea that a staff/2h/bow would all count as a two piece to a 5 piece set. So a staff of torugs pact gives you the same increased spell damage set bonus as two torugs pact 1h swords would.
It's probably coming next patch, they were "looking into what we could do".
mark my words, if the forums scream too much of "no don't count one weapon as 2 set pieces" they will probably go with the "some inherent bonus" route op mentioned. Which would probably cause much imbalance, based on ZOS's track record.
It's nice to see some verification from the staff. It's nice to see the devs using logic and common sense once in a while.
Good to see, but I still have not seen a good magika build that used DW on their main bar.
What are you guys pulling single target on vet trial bosses using DW as your main bar?
It's situational and I don't personally like it, but that's really irrelevant to this discussion. If they created dual wield ranged weapons, for example, the set-bonus issue still applies, and is the only issue this thread is even about.0 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.0 -
Strider_Roshin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭To fix the disparity between set bonuses of weapon types, simply make all 2-handed weapons count as two pieces of a set. If not, 2-handed weapons should have some inherent bonus to make up for the loss of a set bonus.
No. It's ONE item you need to hold with two of your hands. That's why it's called "two handed".
And last i checked we're not applying traits and enchants to our hands.
If you want two items, use the ones provided by the game. It's called a "choice". Deal with it.
Traits on one handed weapons are worth half as much as the two handed ones. It should be the same for item sets.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.0 -
acw37162✭✭✭✭✭
✭Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.Doomslinger781 wrote: »Nobody said anything about making 2-handed setups better than 1-handed setups. I'm speaking strictly about set bonuses and the illogical design of making it impossible to have an equal amount of set bonuses based on preference of weapon type.
Why is this concept so hard for folks to grasp? Make them equal! Rebalance them, whatever. Just do it!
A concept you two seem to be struggling with or simple overlooking is 2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 Pice set bonuses and a 2 piece monster helm by allowing to this you are buffing 2H (and may I add specifically leaving out the bow and stave crowd which shows your overall bias and lack of concern for balance) but suspenseding the obvious; how would you adjust (nerf) 2H to account for the buff in gear set build availability?
"...2H is balanced around not being able to stack two 5 pice set bonus..."
This assumption is based on what? Why wouldn't all weapon types be balanced with all possible sets? Do you think the devs looked at every possible set combination and balanced them specifically with all the possible combinations you can make with 1-handed vs 2-handed weapons?
That's so ridiculous it's funny. No. This game has never been perfectly balanced, isn't now, and never will be (like every other game out there). Likely, the set bonus problem is just another oversight out of the thousands that exist. To fix this flaw would objectively improve the game. Whatever balance issues that arise can be handled accordingly.
Laugh all you like they are balanced that way and no one said perfectly balanced anywhere.
Still, shots at my opinion aside, whatvwould you give up from the 2H abilities or passives to account for an extra 5 piece set bonus you don't currently get.
Do you have a suggestion or just more snark?
Edited by acw37162 on November 1, 2016 1:24AM0 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.Edited by idk on November 1, 2016 2:10AM0 -
tnanever✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.2 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
@tnanever
Ok, I will make this as clear as possible. I have had zero issues with how it is now within the topic you are bringing up. I do not see the change you are proposing as needed at all. This is thread is just one of many on similar topics that do not last long before they fade away.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
@tnanever
Ok, I will make this as clear as possible. I have had zero issues with how it is now within the topic you are bringing up. I do not see the change you are proposing as needed at all. This is thread is just one of many on similar topics that do not last long before they fade away.
So in summary, you have no argument against the change. Got it.0 -
LegacyDM✭✭✭✭✭
✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
Saying you want something to be equal and then saying it's not a balance issue is a fallacy. You can't have an objective discussion without discussing the pros and cons of said changes. The fact remains, under the current combat system giving two Handed weapons a set bonus would make the current system unbalanced.
Two handers hit harder than 2 swords/daggers/sword and board. There is a reason why Stam sorcs, Stam dks, Stam nb, and magicka sorcs all run two handers and staffs. Now you want to give them a set bonus too? Seriously, when was the last time you got annihilated by hidden blade, steel tornado, flurry, or shield bash. Last time I checked people have been wrecking face with crit charge, wrecking blow, reverse slice, eye of flame or heavy attack from stealth.
I'm sorry but advocating for a change has consequences. You can't start a post and only discuss a change without a logical and objection discussion of said changes.Legacy of Kain
Vicious Carnage
¥ampire Lord of the South1 -
bowmanz607✭✭✭✭✭
✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
Point if thread= you want one weapon to count ad 2 pc in order to complete sets. Point of people you mentioned = you can't do that for balance reasons. You yelling at us = don't bring up balance in thread of completing set bonuses. The problem is that the two coexist. You can not divorce one from the other. Changing one pc weapons to count as two = problems with balance.Edited by bowmanz607 on November 1, 2016 3:51AM0 -
tnanever✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
Saying you want something to be equal and then saying it's not a balance issue is a fallacy. You can't have an objective discussion without discussing the pros and cons of said changes. The fact remains, under the current combat system giving two Handed weapons a set bonus would make the current system unbalanced.
Two handers hit harder than 2 swords/daggers/sword and board. There is a reason why Stam sorcs, Stam dks, Stam nb, and magicka sorcs all run two handers and staffs. Now you want to give them a set bonus too? Seriously, when was the last time you got annihilated by hidden blade, steel tornado, flurry, or shield bash. Last time I checked people have been wrecking face with crit charge, wrecking blow, reverse slice, eye of flame or heavy attack from stealth.
I'm sorry but advocating for a change has consequences. You can't start a post and only discuss a change without a logical and objection discussion of said changes.
"The fact remains..." - nope. Not at all. Re-read my post.0 -
LegacyDM✭✭✭✭✭
✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
Saying you want something to be equal and then saying it's not a balance issue is a fallacy. You can't have an objective discussion without discussing the pros and cons of said changes. The fact remains, under the current combat system giving two Handed weapons a set bonus would make the current system unbalanced.
Two handers hit harder than 2 swords/daggers/sword and board. There is a reason why Stam sorcs, Stam dks, Stam nb, and magicka sorcs all run two handers and staffs. Now you want to give them a set bonus too? Seriously, when was the last time you got annihilated by hidden blade, steel tornado, flurry, or shield bash. Last time I checked people have been wrecking face with crit charge, wrecking blow, reverse slice, eye of flame or heavy attack from stealth.
I'm sorry but advocating for a change has consequences. You can't start a post and only discuss a change without a logical and objection discussion of said changes.
"The fact remains..." - nope. Not at all. Re-read my post.
Sure, I've read it. Why don't you propose how it would work and how it wouldn't unbalance the system. Rather than just saying you want equality. Otherwise this post has no substance other than wrobel agrees with me.Legacy of Kain
Vicious Carnage
¥ampire Lord of the South0 -
LaiTash✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
Saying you want something to be equal and then saying it's not a balance issue is a fallacy. You can't have an objective discussion without discussing the pros and cons of said changes. The fact remains, under the current combat system giving two Handed weapons a set bonus would make the current system unbalanced.
Two handers hit harder than 2 swords/daggers/sword and board. There is a reason why Stam sorcs, Stam dks, Stam nb, and magicka sorcs all run two handers and staffs. Now you want to give them a set bonus too? Seriously, when was the last time you got annihilated by hidden blade, steel tornado, flurry, or shield bash. Last time I checked people have been wrecking face with crit charge, wrecking blow, reverse slice, eye of flame or heavy attack from stealth.
I'm sorry but advocating for a change has consequences. You can't start a post and only discuss a change without a logical and objection discussion of said changes.
That's the problem - we have PvE and PvP people and this thread and there's no way they can understand each other. Beacuse 2h is great in PvP and useless in PvE.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
Saying you want something to be equal and then saying it's not a balance issue is a fallacy. You can't have an objective discussion without discussing the pros and cons of said changes. The fact remains, under the current combat system giving two Handed weapons a set bonus would make the current system unbalanced.
Two handers hit harder than 2 swords/daggers/sword and board. There is a reason why Stam sorcs, Stam dks, Stam nb, and magicka sorcs all run two handers and staffs. Now you want to give them a set bonus too? Seriously, when was the last time you got annihilated by hidden blade, steel tornado, flurry, or shield bash. Last time I checked people have been wrecking face with crit charge, wrecking blow, reverse slice, eye of flame or heavy attack from stealth.
I'm sorry but advocating for a change has consequences. You can't start a post and only discuss a change without a logical and objection discussion of said changes.
"The fact remains..." - nope. Not at all. Re-read my post.
Sure, I've read it. Why don't you propose how it would work and how it wouldn't unbalance the system. Rather than just saying you want equality. Otherwise this post has no substance other than wrobel agrees with me.
I already explained why you're wrong and how balance has nothing to do with this thread. You just keep coming back to try to have the last word. This is my thread about a topic you're not discussing. Stop spamming already. Thanks.0 -
tnanever✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »bowmanz607 wrote: »
Weapons already have unique skills and bonuses regardless of whatever sets exist in the game. Again you've missed the point and haven't justified opposition to all weapon types being able to complete equipment sets at the same rate.
Also, your Quake analogy isn't valid here. The weapons in that game were obviously and intentionally unbalanced.
I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus. Your failure to see that or acknowledge thathat has led to a standoff rather than an open discussion. Everything has its pros and cons, yet you seem to refuse to realize the cons of changing the system and the pros of leaving it.
"I believe objective and logical reasoning has been used to justify not allowing all weapons types having 2 pc bonus."
Where? The only possible reasons are the cries regarding balance, but that's invalid because:
1) That assumes 2-handed weapons are inherently stronger to compensate for lack of set bonuses.
-There is nowhere this has ever been said, to my knowledge.
-This would necessarily mean that 2-handed weapons are overpowered when sets are not involved (again, there is nowhere we can see any evidence of this being as the official design).
-Regardless, this is easy to fix by simply tweaking some numbers (whether weapon damage or skills).
2) Any trivial issues regarding upgrade costs, for example, are just that - trivial and simple to fix, and not even worth discussing as an argument against equality of set bonuses for all weapon types.
Nobody has brought up a real reason why 2-handed weapon users are unable to complete the standard 5/5/2 set bonuses that 1-handed weapon users enjoy. Forget all the ancillary stuff - just point out directly why it's logical to have such a glaring imbalance of set-completion capability among the weapons.
I suggest you reread the thread. The balance issue is valid. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the thread regarding balance issues is something else entirely. That does not mean they are invalid. In fact the are objectively reasonable observations and points.
Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue.
@bowmanz607
@acw37162
@Giles.fl@bowmanz607
Guys, really try to pay attention here.
"Making 2H weapons into 2 set bonus does not fix the balance. This thread does not offer much of an education on the balance issue."
This is the last time I'm saying this. This change request has literally nothing to do with how certain weapons may or may not be overpowered, or whether or not some weapons might become overpowered with set-item changes. Really, just stop bringing it up. Make your own thread about whatever balance problems you perceive.
This is strictly about one thing - the fact that 2-handed weapons don't have the same ability as 1-handed weapons to complete equipment sets. That's it. I say that all weapon types should be equal in that regard. Apparently wrobel agrees, according to another poster in this thread. Whatever issues this might cause (balance issues, for example), should and will be addressed if this sensible change is made.
Now unless you have a logical reason why the game shouldn't be that way, don't spam my thread with irrelevant issues.
Saying you want something to be equal and then saying it's not a balance issue is a fallacy. You can't have an objective discussion without discussing the pros and cons of said changes. The fact remains, under the current combat system giving two Handed weapons a set bonus would make the current system unbalanced.
Two handers hit harder than 2 swords/daggers/sword and board. There is a reason why Stam sorcs, Stam dks, Stam nb, and magicka sorcs all run two handers and staffs. Now you want to give them a set bonus too? Seriously, when was the last time you got annihilated by hidden blade, steel tornado, flurry, or shield bash. Last time I checked people have been wrecking face with crit charge, wrecking blow, reverse slice, eye of flame or heavy attack from stealth.
I'm sorry but advocating for a change has consequences. You can't start a post and only discuss a change without a logical and objection discussion of said changes.
That's the problem - we have PvE and PvP people and this thread and there's no way they can understand each other. Beacuse 2h is great in PvP and useless in PvE.
That's a completely separate issue. The devs can balance whatever they want, however they see fit. That's not what this thread is about.0 -
Browiseth✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Because two handed really needs a buff, rightskingrad when zoscharacters:PC/NA but live in EU 150+ ping lyfe- EP - M - Strikes-with-Arcane - Argonian Stamina Sorc - lvl 50 - The Flawless Conqueror/Spirit Slayer
- EP - F - Melina Elinia - Dunmer Magicka Dragonknight - lvl 50
- EP - F - Sinnia Lavellan - Altmer Warden Healer - lvl 50
- EP - M - Follows-the-Arcane - Argonian Healer Sorcerer- lvl 50
- EP - F - Ashes-of-Arcane - Argonian Magicka Necromancer - lvl 50
- EP - M - Bolgrog the Sinh - Orc Stamina Dragonknight - lvl 50
- EP - F - Moonlight Maiden - Altmer Magicka Templar - lvl 50
- EP - F - Maxine Cauline - Breton Magicka Nightblade - lvl 50
- EP - M - Garrus Loridius - Imperial Stamina Templar - lvl 50
- EP - F - Jennifer Loridius - Imperial Necromancer tank - lvl 50
0
This discussion has been closed.